ToddMU03:I took History of Rock I & II as a prerequisite to History of the Beatles.

History of Frank Zappa was also offered when I was there.

My kids took History of Rock in high school. They'd come home and tell me something they learned that day and I couold come back with 2 or 3 related things they didn't cover. Pretty much the only time I ever thought 'I should be teaching that class'

If one accepts that Bart isfundamentallynihilistic then maybe - but then, as a 'child' wouldn't that be expected - at least to a degree?

If so, then Lisa counterpoints with more enlightenment, idealism - and [occasionally] refreshing cynicism. Homer and Marge represent their 'role' models, respectively. Maggie, perhaps more of a blank canvas, exhibits both - sometimes in unexpected ways.

If we believe the Simpsons is an allegory for contempory American society (and not just America), then Bart's behaviouris justified if only because contemporary America has deemed it so. If wedon't then perhaps he's just a character in a satirical cartoon show.

It's amusing perhaps because it hits close to home. It forces us to laugh at some aspects of our own nature we may not otherwise be comfortable with, were they subject to more 'objective' scrutiny.

If [many] people didn't [even on a subconcious level] aspire to emulate some of Bart/Homer's disregard for convention then it would have no resonance. The same could be said of Lisa/Marge's aim to 'do the right thing'. Perhaps Mr. Burns represents some derivative of an Orwellian state ... and so on!

Homer's behaviour is excused because he's [portrayed as] an idiot, Bart because he's a nihilistic child who emulates his Father. Marge because she's [portrayed as] intelligent but frustrated with many aspects of her life, perhaps rueing some of the choices she made along the way. Lisa because she's an idealistic child who emulates her Mother.

It's also true that that blamingpoliticians and legislation (while certainly a factor) is a convenient vehicle to avoid individual responsibility for what we collectively dislike about contempory society. After all, it's much rarer to heap praise on official organs for the things we dolike, isn't it we tend to reserve that accolade unto ourselves, so one might ask ... why is t ...

brap:They seem topical enough. Back in the day, I took a course on Women's Popular Media that was offered through the ender, Women's and Sexuality Studies program. We watched soaps and read Harlequin Romances and stuff like that. I thought it was fascinating.

I still remember the formula for a great Harlequin Romances. I should actually sit down and write one one of these days.

Yeah, these are WTF? things on firast glance, but they all cover interesting, important or fun points. Nobody is going to go to school if every class is either Calculus, English or Physics. There is a social element involved.

Crewmannumber6:ToddMU03: I took History of Rock I & II as a prerequisite to History of the Beatles.

History of Frank Zappa was also offered when I was there.

My kids took History of Rock in high school. They'd come home and tell me something they learned that day and I couold come back with 2 or 3 related things they didn't cover. Pretty much the only time I ever thought 'I should be teaching that class'

Seems they've added History of Jimi Hendrix and Bob Dylan. And History of Rock III.

Fark Rye For Many Whores:underwater basket weaving actually involves making baskets by dipping reeds into water and letting them soak

Oh... oh god.

The stock photo they used was actually of a sweetgrass basket being woven. Those things take time, so they are correspondingly very expensive. To make a small one, maybe a day's weaving, and around $150. Bigger ones - of an actually useful size - can take a few days, and go for several hundred. That's if you're buying one from an average maker; baskets by known artists can go for thousands.

Of course, the people who make them sure as fark didn't go to college to learn how.

Girion47:vudukungfu: give me doughnuts: The University of Kentucky offers a class in the history of UK basketball.

Because the jocks need history credits.

for what? UK basketball players are only there for 2 semesters.

I think the current bunch will be there for a little longer. Excellent recruits, but they just aren't jelling as a team. They're only 18-6 this season, and they lost a home game (first one in three years). The only real stand-out is Nerlens Noel (and his high flat-top).

pizen:Rings'". It was basically a waste but I needed a class in that department to fulfill a degree requirement.

I had to fill a degree requirement, so I ended up taking Spy Fiction. But what was really sad is that I *wanted* to take a Technical Writing class, but doing so wouldn't count towards my degree... in Computer Science.

brap:They seem topical enough. Back in the day, I took a course on Women's Popular Media that was offered through the ender, Women's and Sexuality Studies program. We watched soaps and read Harlequin Romances and stuff like that. I thought it was fascinating.

I still remember the formula for a great Harlequin Romances. I should actually sit down and write one one of these days.

If you do, you better have at least one cringeworthy sex scene that gets nominated for that bad writing award thingamajigger.

That may as well have been a slideshow on why there are so many unemployed college graduates. These classes probably exist exclusively to semi legitimize the other laughable and worthless courses available, like women's studies, afro-american studies, et al.

Central Michigan University used to (and perhaps still does) teach two courses with whimsical names; Physics for Poets and Armchair Chemistry. Both were math-light 100 level courses on their respective topics.

CruJones:Krieghund: Back when I was in college, you could take month-long classes between semesters. They were generally the younger professors' only chance to use their imaginations in course creation. It tended that the more "fru-fru" the class, the more work was actually involved. The course description might make it seem like you're watching a movie every day in class, but it didn't mention that you had to write a paper about each movie.

One class I didn't take, but wish I had, was on the Geography of Food. Why places have different food cultures, that sort of thing. Of course, maybe if I had taken the class I wouldn't be so interested in it today.

I took Wilderness Living Techniques. I expected to learn how to identify edible plants, find which way is north by making a compass out of a needle, start a fire from scratch, but it was pretty lame. We just goofed off in class all semester and then went camping one night, and got really wasted in the woods. Which isn't awful, but I still don't know if I should eated the purple berry or not.

Apparently the correct answer is "eat one, wait three hours, if you haven't died, hallucinated, or been a firehose out both ends, then it's safe (remember where you found said berry (and how to safely get more (and maybe grow them later on (and now you've invented agriculture (and now it's no longer wilderness, oops)))))".

cirby:I took an English course - third year, at that - on the works of Carlos Castaneda.

We spent a grand total of about three hours actually discussing the works of Castaneda. We only covered the three "Yaqui" books, at that.

The entire rest of the course featured the class sitting in the room with the teacher and talking about whatever we felt like. Some times, he played guitar. There were no tests.

/got an A, along with everyone else who bothered to show up//the rest? B.///Yes, including the guy who basically dropped out in October and left town

I had a 100-level philosophy class taught by a guy like that, basically a grad student trying to score some freshman tail without having to go clubbing. What I learned in that class can be summarized in one sentence: Descartes is a tool.

Meh, some of those are useful courses with goofy names (Joy of Garbage - studying garbage and recycling is a valid urban planning course - or whatever the hell the modern, touchy-feely name is now - Green Tech?); some are fun courses people will sign up for (Maple Syrup) so the school can make money, and only a few are truly stupid (Harry Potter genetics, family roles in Soap Operas).

blatz514:We had a mandatory Active Lifestyles class. Class part taught ^this. The lab part was basically gym class for college kids.

My school had something similar, but luckily I was able to get it waived because I was a varsity athlete. So I got to get out of an easy, 2-credit A in exchange for 4 years of getting my ass kicked at the crack of dawn. Not a great tradeoff, now that I think about it.

how to swindle retards for $2000 by teaching them stupid shiatit's a 1 day class book costs $500 and is required, sorry no used 1st year it was printedwant to sell it back? sorry 2nd edition just got released.

CruJones:Courses are not one of the major reasons I'd like to go back to college. Being surrounded by beautiful coeds and actually having 15 more years experience in the real world would make it oh so easy.

Are you a fan of "The Walking Dead?" Is "Zombieland" your favorite movie? If so, Columbia College in Chicago has just the class for you. Its Zombies in Popular Media class traces the history of zombies in movies and literature and explores how zombies relate to themes of capitalism, individuality and xenophobia.

Good to see my alma mater is teaching relevant topics. It's sad to admit, but zombies are lucrative right now.

stevejovi:cirby: I took an English course - third year, at that - on the works of Carlos Castaneda.

We spent a grand total of about three hours actually discussing the works of Castaneda. We only covered the three "Yaqui" books, at that.

The entire rest of the course featured the class sitting in the room with the teacher and talking about whatever we felt like. Some times, he played guitar. There were no tests.

/got an A, along with everyone else who bothered to show up//the rest? B.///Yes, including the guy who basically dropped out in October and left town

I had a 100-level philosophy class taught by a guy like that, basically a grad student trying to score some freshman tail without having to go clubbing. What I learned in that class can be summarized in one sentence: Descartes is a tool.

I've always found it a bit hard to tell apart whether it was DesCartes or DesHorses that was the tool. It seems like neither can really be useful without the other, but then they are both tools.

worlddan:Back when I was first pursuing my first graduate degree I took an undergraduate course just for fun: Philosophy and Rock Music. The major thing that I learned from that class was that I was one of those freaks that actually bothered to listen to the lyrics of the song. I was floored by how many of the students in that class had not idea what the lyrics to their favorite song were actually about. I still recall how this group of go-eds almost went into a riot when they actually bothered to listen to Van Halen's "Black and Blue". Although, maybe that was just for show after being found out.

I pretty much never hear lyrics -- and I'm OK with that. But then, I don't see music as an esoteric pursuit. I've always considered it an art form that should could be appreciated at multiple levels. It's a bit like bowling for fun and bowling as a professional. I admire the professional for his dedication, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to be him. And if decides to act superior and inform me I'm not playing a game correctly, I'll kindly give him the finger and go back to enjoying a frivolous activity.

But then, I guess if I signed up for a bowling class, I imagine I'd be more serious about it -- so who knows.

abfalter:Central Michigan University used to (and perhaps still does) teach two courses with whimsical names; Physics for Poets and Armchair Chemistry. Both were math-light 100 level courses on their respective topics.

For 99% of the population, that's really all you need to know in regards to physics and chemistry. I mean, if you're not a chemist, why the heck do you need to know anything about the difference between an ionic bond and a covalent bond? Or the energy levels of electrons? Or what happens when atoms are squeezed into very, very tight conditions like in a star?

Fark Rye For Many Whores:underwater basket weaving actually involves making baskets by dipping reeds into water and letting them soak

Oh... oh god.

css-ish:

I entered an underwater bicycle race and an underwater pumpkin-carving contest once. But I didn't get college credit for either. Scuba gear was involved. I always assumed that underwater basket weaving was actually done underwater, if it was ever done at all. I'd bet good money that there's an underwater basket weaving class/contest that's ACTUALLY done underwater, somewhere.

Gabrielmot:pizen: Rings'". It was basically a waste but I needed a class in that department to fulfill a degree requirement.

I had to fill a degree requirement, so I ended up taking Spy Fiction. But what was really sad is that I *wanted* to take a Technical Writing class, but doing so wouldn't count towards my degree... in Computer Science.

I had more than one major in college (bounced around) but the one I actually graduated with was mathematics. At one point the registrar took me aside and pointed out that I had reached the point where I couldn't get credit towards graduation for any more math courses They wouldn't even count as electives anymore.

On a totally different note, thinking back, I think History of Latin America was one of my all-time favorite classes.

ciberido:Fark Rye For Many Whores: underwater basket weaving actually involves making baskets by dipping reeds into water and letting them soak

Oh... oh god.

css-ish:

I entered an underwater bicycle race and an underwater pumpkin-carving contest once. But I didn't get college credit for either. Scuba gear was involved. I always assumed that underwater basket weaving was actually done underwater, if it was ever done at all. I'd bet good money that there's an underwater basket weaving class/contest that's ACTUALLY done underwater, somewhere.

People into scuba do weird stuff.

Even being a lumberjack, because that's okay. For some reason it even pays more for the wood.

DontMakeMeComeBackThere:Meh, some of those are useful courses with goofy names (Joy of Garbage - studying garbage and recycling is a valid urban planning course - or whatever the hell the modern, touchy-feely name is now - Green Tech?); some are fun courses people will sign up for (Maple Syrup) so the school can make money, and only a few are truly stupid (Harry Potter genetics, family roles in Soap Operas).

When I was in the Peace Corps we called it "urban planning and development." But I don't know what the universities called it, and it was years ago anyway.

abfalter:Central Michigan University used to (and perhaps still does) teach two courses with whimsical names; Physics for Poets and Armchair Chemistry. Both were math-light 100 level courses on their respective topics.

I used to work as a physics tutor. The university had 4 different physics tracks:

physics majorsengineering majors(everybody else)humanities majors

Not to pick on engineering majors. The stuff they do is tough. But their physics classes were geared more towards practical application and less towards the underlying theory.

give me doughnuts:Girion47: vudukungfu: give me doughnuts: The University of Kentucky offers a class in the history of UK basketball.

Because the jocks need history credits.

for what? UK basketball players are only there for 2 semesters.

I think the current bunch will be there for a little longer. Excellent recruits, but they just aren't jelling as a team. They're only 18-6 this season, and they lost a home game (first one in three years). The only real stand-out is Nerlens Noel (and his high flat-top).

But until he can start making free-throws and a better offensive effort, I won't be impressed. Everyone keeps trying to spin him as Davis Jr. but he's not that good, he's a selfish player, interested in his stats and not the team. Mays, Goodwin and Harrow are who my hopes are pinned on. Would be Wiltjer but he's far too timid.

There's a couple of classed from my alma mater, UC Berkeley, which isn't surprising. They didn't include the human sexuality class that included an optional strip-club visit. But these are all student-led electives that are worth either 1 unit or 2 (a normal class is 4 units), and no, you can't ever graduate by just taking these kinds of classes. Your individual major will still require lots of actual academic rigor*.

But their physics classes were geared more towards practical application and less towards the underlying theory.

I took some courses like that in college: circuits for non-EEs and advanced math for engineers. The circuits course was a less intense version of the EECS major version. Math for engineers was full of harmonics and Bessel functions and the like; you wouldn't win a Fields medal but you could be a productive engineer or scientist.

dericwater:abfalter: Central Michigan University used to (and perhaps still does) teach two courses with whimsical names; Physics for Poets and Armchair Chemistry. Both were math-light 100 level courses on their respective topics.

For 99% of the population, that's really all you need to know in regards to physics and chemistry. I mean, if you're not a chemist, why the heck do you need to know anything about the difference between an ionic bond and a covalent bond? Or the energy levels of electrons? Or what happens when atoms are squeezed into very, very tight conditions like in a star?

There are plenty of reasons to know more than just the basic Three Rs. Sheer curiosity. To know when you're actually being sold snake oil or a budget proposal that's complete BS. The ability to intelligently argue a point on Fark. That's why a GED in with double majors in Law/Political Science is required for the Politics tab.